Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 16:36 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski
<luto(a)amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> In this particular case, it's my patch, and I've never sent you a pull
> request. I sort of assumed that security(a)kernel.org magically caused
> acknowledged fixes to end up in your tree. I'm not sure what I'm
> supposed to do here.
>
> Maybe the confusion is because Eric resent the patch?
So I saw the patch twice in email , but neither time did I get the
feeling that I should apply it. The first time Eric responded to it,
so the maintainer clearly knew about it and was reacting to it, so I
ignored it. The second time Eric resent it as email to various people
and lists, and I didn't react to it because I expected that was again
just for discussion.
So I'm not blaming you as much as Eric.
No, it's good to blame me. I was trying to deal with it as fast as I
could since I was already trying to ignore my computer before I got
married last weekend and took the last week off. I realized when I got
back yesterday you hadn't picked it up and it was on my list of things
to try to handle today. I think both 1 and 2 are good to be applied to
your tree. Although only #1 is really an absolutely critical issue.
If a maintainer expects me to
pick it up from the email (rather than his usual git pulls), I want
that maintainer to *say* so. Because otherwise, as mentioned, I expect
it to come through the maintainer tree as usual.
Linus